Just like our opinions on this will all be different as players it is for the companies envolved. Just making money isn't enough sometimes. Companies want or demand a certain profit % or margin or they shut down projects or stores all the time. This is something you see with retail chains all the time. Even when stores are making cash if they dont hit the magic % the parent company wants they are closed. Failing in business isn't only about not making money but not making enough.

Could you please produce some evidence of businesses that have shut down before, despite being profitable? Personally, I've never heard of such a thing aside from a few cases (a Domino's was shut down because they were being robbed too much despite doing very good business). To me, I find it to be incomprehensible that any company would shut down a profitable business unless it was to merge with another business in order to maximize profits and minimize expenditures.

Could you please produce some evidence of businesses that have shut down before, despite being profitable? Personally, I've never heard of such a thing aside from a few cases (a Domino's was shut down because they were being robbed too much despite doing very good business). To me, I find it to be incomprehensible that any company would shut down a profitable business unless it was to merge with another business in order to maximize profits and minimize expenditures.

He can't, simply because the situations that cause this have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Considering that this game is not a Company, so won't fit any of these situations. The only situation that would cause a profitable game to 'close down' is if they decide to invest the resources into another project. Considering the expenses that went into this project, I don't think that is a feasible option at this time.

In the real world, the only scenario that would involve closing pieces of a company have to do with preventing defaulting on loans during bankruptcy and other similar situations. See news reports on Borders bookstores for that situation. It doesn't apply at all here.

Could you please produce some evidence of businesses that have shut down before, despite being profitable? Personally, I've never heard of such a thing aside from a few cases (a Domino's was shut down because they were being robbed too much despite doing very good business). To me, I find it to be incomprehensible that any company would shut down a profitable business unless it was to merge with another business in order to maximize profits and minimize expenditures.

Well it happens with my old company all the time. Main Street and Main, if stores are holding up the profit margin that is set as a standard and they don't own the building they shut it down. When you start messing with with profit lines ppl at the top don't get paid out the same and that is really the bottom line. If the folks in charge are still making the money that it is worth to them to deal with the hassle then things keep on going. A much more simple way to look at this is say 2 ppl are walking down the street both see a penny one might pass it up the other might grab it. For some the reward isn't worth the effort.

At some point we will all realize that we are pulling a Clinton and going back and forth over what the definition of "is" is.

I say it is, simply because they relied on the franchises name to make it big. If the game didn't contain the name "Star Wars" in it, I really doubt it would have many players in it to worry about.

It very well could have been a Mass Effect MMO, with Jedi being Biotics instead. It probably would have done well initially, and right now might not be in quite a precarious state. I know the initially sales wouldn't be as huge because I know A LOT of people signed on to this game only because it had Star Wars in the name. But I think that also pumped up expectations (plus the $$$ cut LucasArts gets).

As for the original question, I think it failed in some arenas and succeeded in others. Overall, while I am not comfortable calling SWTOR a failure, I am comfortable calling it a disappointment for not creating an environment that they wanted to create. The end game content is nowhere near as bad as people make it out, but it is also nowhere near as robust as it should be at this point (I don't mean just quantity of Operations/Flashpoints). And the game set a new standard in MMO leveling experience/storytelling. Their creative Warzone scenarios also deserve praise, especially Huttball (despite a general disdain from certain players).

I think it launched with a solid base, but I also think the game was rushed out without a fresh coat of paint. Because of this people were quick to point this out, EA had some kneejerk reactions, and Bioware-Austin have been on their heels trying to play catchup ever since, spinning their wheels in a lot of cases. I think the camp at Bioware learned a lot about MMO's with this project, and I think other MMO developers learned a lot from the stumbling SWTOR has had as well as the successes.

Again, that it didn't shut down is no indication of success or failure without having the numbers to see if they actually broke even yet, the game still generates a healthy revenue stream and EA could be banking on the quick injection of revenue that other titles got when transitioning to free to play just to break even.

Or they could be banking on the quick injection of revenue that other titles got when transitioning to free to push profits up. Other than the EA bean counters and the people they report to nobody knows if this project is in the black or the red.

Which was my point, hence making assumptions based on the game being online is pointless.

Well it happens with my old company all the time. Main Street and Main, if stores are holding up the profit margin that is set as a standard and they don't own the building they shut it down. When you start messing with with profit lines ppl at the top don't get paid out the same and that is really the bottom line. If the folks in charge are still making the money that it is worth to them to deal with the hassle then things keep on going. A much more simple way to look at this is say 2 ppl are walking down the street both see a penny one might pass it up the other might grab it. For some the reward isn't worth the effort.

At some point we will all realize that we are pulling a Clinton and going back and forth over what the definition of "is" is.

There's no such thing, if it's profitable. Let me put it to you this way. CEO, CFO, Presidents, they all get paid a salary. Business owners pay themselves a salary. It's all a part of their P&L's. What they get based on profit would be a bonus on top of their salary. Even if the profit is small, it's still going to pay them more than no profit at all. I think you may be thinking of pure revenue, without factoring in rent, deliveries, labor cost, etc. It makes no sense to shut down a store that's turning a profit.

There's no such thing, if it's profitable. Let me put it to you this way. CEO, CFO, Presidents, they all get paid a salary. Business owners pay themselves a salary. It's all a part of their P&L's. What they get based on profit would be a bonus on top of their salary. Even if the profit is small, it's still going to pay them more than no profit at all. I think you may be thinking of pure revenue, without factoring in rent, deliveries, labor cost, etc. It makes no sense to shut down a store that's turning a profit.

to be fair, it does happen, but on rare occasions and only when the parent company has extremely limited resources and needs to invest in an option that would yield the highest possible ROI in the short to medium term; they'd abandon something marginally profitable in return for a potential with higher profit margins. I disagree with it, but it does happen.

Occasionally you will also have companies shutting down lucrative and profitable ventures to sustain non-profitable ones, (think Virgin Airlines for example, there was a huge discussion around Branson shutting down several subsidiaries in favor of sustaining his "True love", several years ago) but again, a rare occurrence. that having been said, anything that returns a ROI is bound to be considered a success by an investor.

I once read that angel (or otherwise) investors who have something like a 20% percent success rate in investments (i.e, actually making any kind of return or taking an investment to an IPO) are considered to be a benchmark standard (for success). Don't quote me on it, because i'm not sure of the figures, but the idea still stands.

Last edited by Antipathy; 2012-10-03 at 12:03 AM.

{I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. }

There's no such thing, if it's profitable. Let me put it to you this way. CEO, CFO, Presidents, they all get paid a salary. Business owners pay themselves a salary. It's all a part of their P&L's. What they get based on profit would be a bonus on top of their salary. Even if the profit is small, it's still going to pay them more than no profit at all. I think you may be thinking of pure revenue, without factoring in rent, deliveries, labor cost, etc. It makes no sense to shut down a store that's turning a profit.

No, this does actually happen all the time. Companies shut down profitable divisions / projects all the time for any number of reasons: the resources would be better spent making more profit elsewhere; the future of the project is risky compared to future profit potential; the division or project distracts from the overall company direction. Quite common.

Same goes for companies as a whole. If my company was slightly profitable but did not have upside, I would strongly consider shutting it down. I have worked for many big tech companies where this has happened repeatedly. To think otherwise is quite naive.

to be fair, it does happen, but on rare occasions and only when the parent company has extremely limited resources and needs to invest in an option that would yield the highest possible ROI in the short to medium term; they'd abandon something marginally profitable in return for a potential with higher profit margins. I disagree with it, but it does happen.

Occasionally you will also have companies shutting down lucrative and profitable ventures to sustain non-profitable ones, (think Virgin Airlines for example, there was a huge discussion around Branson shutting down several subsidiaries in favor of sustaining his "True love", several years ago) but again, a rare occurrence. that having been said, anything that returns a ROI is bound to be considered a success by an investor.

I once read that angel (or otherwise) investors who have something like a 20% percent success rate in investments (i.e, actually making any kind of return or taking an investment to an IPO) are considered to be a benchmark standard (for success). Don't quote me on it, because i'm not sure of the figures, but the idea still stands.

The only time I can find of Branson doing anything to float his airline was when he sold Virgin Records. That would hardly constitute shutting something down. Especially when you get 500 million pounds for it. Over the last few years, he's even invested profits from that and his train company into environmentally friendly fuels. Even still, had he done that, it wouldn't have been because it wasn't hitting a profit percentage. It would be because he did something batshit crazy.

As for your first point, only a company that is on its last legs or just starting and in desperate need of capital would move to forgo the currently profitable in order to invest in the potentially more profitable.

The only time I can find of Branson doing anything to float his airline was when he sold Virgin Records. That would hardly constitute shutting something down. Especially when you get 500 million pounds for it. Over the last few years, he's even invested profits from that and his train company into environmentally friendly fuels. Even still, had he done that, it wouldn't have been because it wasn't hitting a profit percentage. It would be because he did something batshit crazy.

As for your first point, only a company that is on its last legs or just starting and in desperate need of capital would move to forgo the currently profitable in order to invest in the potentially more profitable.

to the first point, I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that the batshit crazy stuff does indeed happen :P

as to the second point, yes, that is also another instance where it happens. and as the poster above pointed out, it does occur readily in the tech industry.

{I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. }

I think the main problem here is how we define failure. I say it has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Good games can be failures. Even great games can be, like Psychonauts for example. And SW:TOR sadly falls here as well.

It may break even, but thats probably not what Electronic Arts was looking for. They were focussing their efforts on making SW:TOR into a flagship MMO that could claim all those WoW subscribers over time. It could not. And Electronic Arts might be asking itself weather another MMO project would have succeeded. They were as far as I know not pushing several MMO projects at once. Even if SW:TOR is making money it is not worth the delay of 3 years EA now has, for becoming a big player in the MMO market.

SW:TOR fell victim to plenty of things. IMO the biggest thing was itself. Shamefully Bioware was WAY too into themselves at launch and SO desperate to do a perfect launch and get things right out of the gate that the forgot to look beyond the bed. They focused plenty of resources into getting the guild launch system up and going and getting people on servers and spreading people out that they forgot simply, what happens after the first week. The drop off.

Now the drop off doesn't man people stopped playing, no. What it means is that people started putting themselves back into work, school so on so forth. They no longer have the time off or time locked away that they did with the first week of release. Now they are settling into their lives and bringing the game along with them. So now this is the point when servers for the most part in other games start stabilizing and things start getting less rocky. Well, Bioware tried to prevent any of this happening with pre-order preplay options, and having a gazillion servers at launch.

So, now we had a smooth launch, we should be good right?! Nope. The bend. With the drop off showing less people active, and people being so spread out things looked A LOT thinner than they really were. What would be an otherwise highly populated game started showing emptiness quite fast, even if just an illusion. Bioware's failure to address this fast enough and call the condensations of servers "The Next step in providing the best gameplay we can!" instead played chicken. They let an illusion become a hemorrhage in the game. While there were plenty of people playing at any given time you would not know that by the server populations. This started and quickly deterred people from getting the game and alienated people who already bought the game. The illusion of jumping ship is a quite contagious one. Plenty of people followed suit. In essence Bioware shot themselves in the foot.

This lead to a chain effect in an otherwise great game. Sure people didn't buy into the whole dialogued quest thing, but it was easy enough to get through and was still a fun and engaging game. With plenty of awesome ideas and gameplay and much potential the game had, and still does have the ability to go far. Perhaps it was destined to be F2P to start and who knows what will come out of it!

-Retribution, the path of the protector or mender brought to it's natural conclusion; destroying evil before the weak need to be shielded from it, and before it can wound the innocent.Fix My DPS | Fix My Heals | Fix My Tanking |

The initial release was a failure, too soon to say about the F2P transition.
There is no way to get around it. They failed to get fixes, updates, and new content out in a reasonable time frame and people left. I think it is the fastest transition to F2P I have ever seen, when they didn't get the numbers they were looking for they bailed and went F2P instead of addressing the problem.

Now they are going to have to figure out how to make frequent content updates and fixes to keep people interested, and without the subs paying for it. If they can successfully make that transition then they can still succeed. I think the game had great potential and they screwed themselves by not following up on the release. They are still a young game and can still make a come back.